Causes And Differences Of Thomas Hobbes

The revolution generated radical changes in the principles, opinions, and sentiments of the global people. New ideas and issues affected political ideas. In addition a new government was also changed. A few of the many enlightenment thinkers were Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, baron Do Montesquieu, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Firstly, it is apparent that Hobbes’s ideas apply strongly to the French Revolution. In the French Revolution in 1789, people were outraged at their monarch. There were riots, there were attacks on prisons, there were beheadings of government officials. But before that, the people had tried to get along. The king had brought 1,200 French people together, in hopes of solving their problems, in hopes of being civil about the whole thing - and nothing got done. They were split evenly about issues that would likely change France for the better, and no laws were passed or denied. Revolution broke out. During the revolution, people started gaining power. Public speakers such as Maximilien Robespierre or Jean-Paul Marat were held in something close to reverence by the general public. People were rising to power from a mob - and this is what Hobbes’s ideas describe. He says that there is no way that people can simply get along.

Thomas Hobbes then begins to explain that what any one man has another may take at will. Some men take pleasure in the conquest of what belongs to another and will take more than they need, while others are content with the bare essentials. Hobbes states that, because it is in man's nature to increase his own power it should be “allowed.” Hobbes states that there are three causes for quarrels between men, the first being competition and the want for man to gain from another through violence. The second is diffidence, or a lack of confidence in one’s own ability of worth which in turn causes men to fight for safety, perhaps to distract another from his insecurities. The third is for the sake of glory, or to secure his reputation. Thomas Hobbes says that, because all men have a natural animalistic inclination to fight for what we want and believe we deserve, a “common power”, a government or hierarchy of some sort, is vital to maintaining a semblance of peace. Hobbes muses that, without security outside of us there will be no industry or commodities, no modern comforts, no society. Without someone to lord over us in some way our future will be one of “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short…” (pg. 48). And, while we enjoy the

Thomas Hobbes was a proponent of the monarchal system and in this paper I will prove that Hobbes was right in supporting the monarchal system of government, I will also show the opposing school of thought, and finally, I will give you my opinion on the monarchal system. Thomas Hobbes lived from 1588-1679 and throughout most of his life there was violence going on all around him. The biggest case was the English Civil War. This war lasted about seven years and it overthrew the monarchy, which England had established many years before. After this revolution, shaky governments ruled the land for several years. But then, the English went back to the monarchal system. These times shaped Hobbes’ views

If a power is present which is not strong enough for a man’s security, man will call on his strengths to secure himself from other men. It was clear to Hobbes, that men must group themselves together, with a leader capable of ensuring obedience of these natural laws. It is important that the group being governed is a large group because the small groups are not stable. The addition of only a few members with contrasting views to a small group, could destroy the entire community.

Influential philosophers were not uncommon in the seventeenth century. Two British political thinkers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, though opposite in many ways, both had one shared legacy: both men greatly influenced the politicians of America and laid a foundation of what would one day become the American government. While both men did some heavily influencing, they too witnessed events that forged their worldviews. Hobbes began writing after the English Civil War where King Charles I was beheaded, and the civil government came to an end. It was then that Hobbes concluded that humans do not possess the capabilities to live at peace with one another. Locke wrote considering the Glorious and Bloodless Revolution where King James II of England was ousted and there was no considerable violence. When learning about their theories on government, it is crucial to consider these factors to understand the context and reasoning behind them.

Change is in the inevitable byproduct of society. As societies evolve they change according to the life style of the people who inhabit them. Without change, society would never progress and thus would be frozen in a single moment in time. Thomas Hobbes and John Lock were two English philosophers who observed tremendous changes in English politics between the years of 1640 and 1690. In closely examining the views of both of these philosophers in subject areas such as the nature of man in society, the relationship between a society and its government, and the affect that both philosophers’ novels had on the government, it can be concluded that both Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies created prominent change in the methods of government.

The English civil war, also known as the Puritan Revolution, occurred from 1642 to 1649. The conflict arose in response to a power struggle between the king and the parliament. Middle class merchants supported Parliament and were known as the Roundheads and the Anglican clergy and the majority of the nobility backed the kings and were known as the Cavaliers. This bloody exchange left a mark on Hobbes, similar to that of the Italian civil wars and Machiavelli. While England was taken over by their civil war, France was occupied in their fronde war. Witnessing the atrocities committed and the mass destruction, Hobbes went on to write about the vicious state of human

Thomas Hobbes was a divisive figure in his day and remains so up to today. Hobbes’s masterpiece, Leviathan, offended his contemporary thinkers with the implications of his view of human nature and his theology. From this pessimistic view of the natural state of man, Hobbes derives a social contract in order to avoid civil war and violence among men. Hobbes views his work as laying out the moral framework for a stable state. In reality, Hobbes was misconstruing a social contract that greatly benefited the state based on a misunderstanding of civil society and the nature and morality of man.

Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity;

Hobbes believed that in nature people had to do whatever was necessary to survive and that even if living together, people were still likely to fight. His view of people was dark and most likely due to the horrors of a series of political schemes and armed conflicts he had seen during the English Civil War. He believed that a contract was necessary. Hobbes felt that people were not capable of living in a democratic society. Instead, a single dominant ruler was needed, and if everyone did their part, then the community would function smoothly. Hobbes’ theory is unlike Locke and Rousseau’s. He believed that once the people gave power to the government, the people gave up the right to that power. It would essentially be the cost of the safety the people were seeking.

Compare and contrast Hobbes’s and Locke’s views of the state of nature and the fundamental purpose of political society. Whose view is the more plausible? Why?

In Book I of chapter XIII, Of the Natural Condition of Mankind, as concerning their Felicity, and Misery, Hobbes talks about the three principal causes of quarrel, competition, diffidence, and glory. The first, competition, is for gain. Hobbes describes it as,” The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men 's persons, wives, children, and cattle…” (Hobbes Chapter 13). In other words, competition causes men to use violence to steal from one another, which leads to war. Diffidence is described as safety, and the final cause of fighting is glory, which is reputation. Hobbes says in the text, “the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name” (Hobbes Chapter 13).

The mechanical analogy, contra the traditional organic and theological concepts of the state, became for Hobbes both apposite and inevitable. Civic conflict was leading to disaggregation of the contemporary 17th century English state, demonstrating to him that the sanctions which held it together were neither eternal nor 'natural.' [4, 5, 6].

Thomas Hobbes was not a positive person. He believed it was a dog eat dog world, and every man for themselves. Hobbes was no supporter of democratic government. He did not agree with the laws, and believed they shouldn 't be enforced. His solution to problems would be to form a monarch. One person is to control who has the given right, such as; a king or queen. Hobbes visualizes a state of nature were we are all at war. Hobbes example he had on what life would be like without government was a short, nasty, and brutish life.